Chamber and committees

I have nothing further to add, other than to thank the minister and others who were involved for their input and engagement on this package of amendments.

Amendment 130 agreed to.

Amendments 131 to 134 moved—[Tess White]—and agreed to.

Section 66—Unregulated providers of legal services: voluntary register, annual contributions and complaints contributions

The Scottish Conservatives are broadly supportive of the amendments in the group. However, as the minister has said, the Law Society has flagged two amendments, in particular, that it believes are problematic. Amendments 34 and 42 would create a new right for a business to lodge an appeal to the court when the Law Society directs it, as part of its remit to intervene directly in the public interest. The Law Society has raised serious concerns about that approach, which it believes weakens public protections by delaying the ability to take necessary action to safeguard client assets. It gives the example of a conveyancing transaction to demonstrate the need to intervene urgently to protect client interests.

Has the Scottish Government taken into consideration the unintended consequences of the provisions, which could negatively impact the consumer?

When the bill process started, there was an unacceptable situation, which the legal profession reported directly to Scottish ministers. It was absolutely absurd and threatened the independence of the judiciary. The bill that we are debating and voting on today is not the one that existed at the start of the process.

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission’s consumer panel is clear that the bill will make the current regulatory landscape even more complex and difficult to understand. We had an opportunity to overhaul that landscape, but the bill simply tinkers around the edges of a byzantine system.

Secondly, there has been considerable debate on who should regulate the legal profession. The Roberton review concluded that there should be a single independent regulator and a single streamlined complaints process. I note that, in its stage 3 briefing on the bill, Consumer Scotland echoed that call.

There is huge concern that consumers have been forgotten in the bill. What is your view on that?

We are fully supportive of having an independent regulator. The regulators and the judiciary were fundamentally opposed to the approach of having a single independent regulator, but we believe that it is important and that the corresponding recommendation of the Roberton review should have been followed through.

In its eternal wisdom, the Scottish Government settled on a so-called workaround in the bill, which satisfied no one. It created sweeping new ministerial powers to intervene directly in the regulation of legal services, prompting widespread condemnation—from the legal profession and beyond—of what was seen as a Government assault on the rule of law. Its approach was considered to be bad law making.

I will take the minister’s intervention first.

I am saying that, when the bill process started, the Scottish Government wanted the judiciary to report directly to ministers, which was absolutely absurd. We have now reached a point where we are tinkering around the edges as the bill increases cost and complexity, and consumers are not being fully taken into consideration.

I thank the minister for her constructive engagement on section 65, following stage 2 consideration of the bill. Amendments 130 to 134 and 142, in my name, allow the Scottish Government to lay regulations that would give specific organisations the mechanism to request that an unregulated provider of legal services is formally registered.

At stage 2, I lodged amendments from the Law Society that sought to change the voluntary register for unregulated providers of legal services in section 65 to make the register mandatory. The Law Society’s position was that a voluntary register that requires payment of levies and fees and that subjects a service provider to a statutory complaint scheme is

“unlikely to attract a meaningful uptake”,

and I agree.

The Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee’s stage 1 report called on the Scottish Government to strengthen the provision and consider “creating a mandatory register”. Stakeholders such as the Competition and Markets Authority have made similar calls. However, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission raised concerns about how the amendments at stage 2 would work in practice.

My view remains that it is in the public interest to have a mandatory scheme. Consumers currently have no recourse that would enable them to raise complaints about an unregulated provider.

I am pleased at stage 3 to have worked with the Scottish Government to find a way to strengthen section 65 that satisfies stakeholders. The Law Society states in its stage 3 briefing that my amendments

“significantly toughen up the provisions in the Bill”

and lay the foundations to begin to address the issues in the unregulated sector. The SLCC states that the amendments take

“a proportionate and risk-based approach”.

I am grateful to the Law Society and the SLCC for their expertise and insights during this process, which has led to a positive outcome for consumers. I urge colleagues to support these changes.

I move amendment 130.

I thank the minister for her constructive engagement on amendment 137 following stage 2. Amendment 137 creates a statutory post-legislative review of the act, to begin no later than 10 years after the commencement of sections 8, 39, 52 and 78. It requires the Scottish ministers to consult regulators of legal services, consumers of legal services and the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission as part of that review, and it leaves the door open for other individuals and organisations to be consulted, too. Following the raising of concerns at stage 2 about the length of the review period, I have agreed with the minister that 10 years is an appropriate length of time and that it should begin from the commencement of specific sections of the bill rather than royal assent.

Post-legislative scrutiny is important; however, in the case of the regulatory framework for legal services, it is essential. That point was made by the Competition and Markets Authority in its stage 3 briefing, which urged

“regular statutory review to assess whether”

the act

“is meeting the needs of consumers”.

Many of the issues that arise in the regulatory system have occurred because so much time has passed since the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 was added to the statute book. The Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Bill is therefore long overdue. The Law Society has been campaigning for change for at least a decade.

Given that the bill has been so heavily amended, there is a strong case, too, for ensuring that it is operating as expected within what is a fragmented legislative landscape, and that it serves the interests of consumers.

Stakeholders are widely supportive of a post-legislative review, which, I hope, will give all parties involved an opportunity to take stock and recommend further changes in the public interest.

Regulatory issues must not get lost in the weeds for years to come, which is why I urge colleagues to support amendment 137.

I move amendment 137.

I speak today on behalf of my constituents who rely on the energy sector for their livelihoods. The job losses at Harbour Energy are the tip of the iceberg. Why? Because the SNP and Labour are directly harming the industry with a presumption against new oil and gas exploration in the North Sea and a punitive fiscal environment. Hostile left-wing politicians are presiding over the industrial decline of Scotland’s oil and gas sector.

Russell Borthwick of Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce is right: if the SNP Scottish Government and Labour UK Government do not change course, recent lay-offs will be

“just a tiny fraction of what’s to come”.

The so-called just transition risks becoming a jobless transition. It will not be fixed by gimmicks such as Great British Energy. Even its chairman, Juergen Maier, said that it would take 20 years to deliver the 1,000 jobs that have been promised. That is an utter sham.

SNP ministers tout a clean energy future, but they will not even define what “clean” means, scaring off the investment that we need for an affordable transition. The SNP Government ploughed ahead with a ScotWind gold rush, selling off vast swathes of the sea bed on the cheap with no real plan for grid infrastructure.

Meanwhile, Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks wants to puncture our prime agricultural farmland and rural landscapes with monster pylons up to 230 feet tall, leaving residents feeling betrayed and disenfranchised. Their mental health is already suffering and they are fearing the health impacts, lost livelihoods and plummeting property values from the explosion of that new energy infrastructure. The bottom has dropped out of their world.

Farmers are ringing alarm bells over serious safety concerns about overhead lines and farming machinery.